For Those Saying Glenn Frey is Necessary to the Eagles; no Glenn, no legit Eagles

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

Originally Posted by Brooke

Why would you HOPE that they would be better without Glenn? I just don't understand that comment.

Pardon my optimism but every concert I attend, I hope will be the best I've attended. If I attend another Eagles concert, I hope it'll be the best I've ever attended, if Eagles make a new album, I hope it'll be better than my current favourites Hotel California and Long Road Out Of Eden.

I was very disappointed that Randy wasn't included in the HFO line up but they were fantastic without him. I wouldn't dismiss the posibility of them being great without Glenn, although I'm pretty underwhelmed with what I've seen so far.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

Originally Posted by Funk 50

Pardon my optimism but every concert I attend, I hope will be the best I've attended. If I attend another Eagles concert, I hope it'll be the best I've ever attended, if Eagles make a new album, I hope it'll be better than my current favourites Hotel California and Long Road Out Of Eden.

I was very disappointed that Randy wasn't included in the HFO line up but they were fantastic without him. I wouldn't dismiss the posibility of them being great without Glenn, although I'm pretty underwhelmed with what I've seen so far.

Well that is where we differ.

Most of us do not believe for a second that they can be 'great' without Glenn. They can be a cover band. As for making an album, if such a scenario was to occur, you know very well it would be a Don Henley solo album in all but name. You'd have your token Walsh & Schmit tracks. You'd have your token Gill track & perhaps a token Deacon Frey track. How that could possibly be 'better' I have no idea. There is a great difference between 'hoping' for something and looking at the grim reality of it.

The situation with Randy is entirely diifferent as he had left the band in 1977. He also did not have the large number of songwriting credits & lead vocals Glenn had. You just echo the uninformed view that anyone can sing & play Glenn's parts & it doesn't matter; hell, it could even be 'better'. It's just unfair. It's wrong to be so dismissive of Glenn's talents. But whatever. I've gone over this so often that I can't continue to do it.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

Originally Posted by Funk 50

Pardon my optimism but every concert I attend, I hope will be the best I've attended. If I attend another Eagles concert, I hope it'll be the best I've ever attended, if Eagles make a new album, I hope it'll be better than my current favourites Hotel California and Long Road Out Of Eden.

I was very disappointed that Randy wasn't included in the HFO line up but they were fantastic without him. I wouldn't dismiss the posibility of them being great without Glenn, although I'm pretty underwhelmed with what I've seen so far.

I really donít see why they would put Randy in the HFO lineup. They had Timothy. He left and was replaced. I prefer Randy but it made sense. Randy also didnít settle down like the others did. He is still drinking a lot and has issues. I think Tim was a great guy for the second half of the band

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

Originally Posted by Freypower

Well that is where we differ.

Most of us do not believe for a second that they can be 'great' without Glenn. They can be a cover band. As for making an album, if such a scenario was to occur, you know very well it would be a Don Henley solo album in all but name. You'd have your token Walsh & Schmit tracks. You'd have your token Gill track & perhaps a token Deacon Frey track. How that could possibly be 'better' I have no idea. There is a great difference between 'hoping' for something and looking at the grim reality of it.

The situation with Randy is entirely diifferent as he had left the band in 1977. He also did not have the large number of songwriting credits & lead vocals Glenn had. You just echo the uninformed view that anyone can sing & play Glenn's parts & it doesn't matter; hell, it could even be 'better'. It's just unfair. It's wrong to be so dismissive of Glenn's talents. But whatever. I've gone over this so often that I can't continue to do it.

I so agree FP.

From the very beginning Glenn Frey was the one with the charismatic personality leading the charge. Without Glenn, quite simply, there would be no Eagles.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

It doesn't surprise me that F50 would "hope" the Eagles would be better without Glenn. It's pretty easy to discern from his posts on this board that he isn't a Glenn fan and he doesn't like Glenn's fans either. I don't get it. It's quite like someone saying they aren't a Glenn fan anymore because they don't like the comments we've made. It's a poor excuse, IMO. Likely they never were a fan.

Glenn was the Eagles to me when it came right down to the wire. The sum is greater than the parts but I feel he was the MVP of the band. While I wouldn't see them without Glenn or Don, for me anyway it always felt like it was Glenn's band and while Glenn and Don made band decisions, it was always Glenn's band and I feel that to be the case. But still, no Glenn OR Don = no "Eagles" IMO. Period.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

....Most of us do not believe for a second that they can be 'great' without Glenn..... .

I'm glad that "most of us" doesn't include the rest of the band, which currently includes his son, Deacon.

I became an Eagles fan in the late 70s, when Henley was far more prominent than Frey. I became a Frey fan during his solo career, so I've been a GF fan for a long time. I'm sure most of his fans are fine too but there is an unpleasant minority who seem to judge everybody, simply by how much they praise Glenn and are pretty hostile to those that don't reach the mark.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

Originally Posted by Brooke

Why would you HOPE that they would be better without Glenn? I just don't understand that comment.

I think its like if you go to see a sequel of a movie. You go see it BECAUSE you liked the first, and it's only natural that since you're paying your hard earned money to go, that you'd hope its as good or better.
I've never gone to a movie or concert and said, I hope this one is not as good as the last one.
I think that's natural. It doesn't mean it will be, but if that's what was meant by HOPING, I would concur.

Re: Eagles.... 3.0

Originally Posted by BillBailey1976

I think its like if you go to see a sequel of a movie. You go see it BECAUSE you liked the first, and it's only natural that since you're paying your hard earned money to go, that you'd hope its as good or better.
I've never gone to a movie or concert and said, I hope this one is not as good as the last one.
I think that's natural. It doesn't mean it will be, but if that's what was meant by HOPING, I would concur.

BB, thank you for that comment. I can understand what you are saying.

For me, the Eagles are done because their leader has left. They would have also been done if it would have been Don H that had died. Without either of them, the Eagles are gone. I have no desire to seen the new group. I hope all of you that want to see them enjoys it. It's just not for me. I hold no grudges against any of you that like it.

"They will never forget you 'till somebody new comes along"1948-2016 Gone but not forgotten